Wikibooks:Book of the month/March 2005 voting

The voting for the Book of the month for March 2005 is open from 1 - 28 February, 2005, and will close on February 28, 2005, 00:00 UTC. The book of the month will be featured on the main page of Wikibooks.

'''Closed. Any votes added will be reverted.''' 

Physics Study Guide (4)
Votes:
 * 1) This book is probably the best book on the site so far.--Naryathegreat 01:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) --Andreas 22:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) TUF-KAT 17:47, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) SamE 03:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This is one of the few completed books on this site. - SamE 03:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) from January
 * And as a "guide", being as far along as it is makes it pretty useful - marsh from January
 * I think this books has broken the back of the problem regarding raising sufficient content but its pretty sparse on explanations (not definitions) and could quickly be polished a lot with some publicity - Mark from January
 * Excellent book - Charlie123 from January
 * this guide is good for students preparing for exams. for full impact it really needs a complimentary textbook... perhaps could provide that!  from January
 * One more vote, and this book is automatically nominated for next month's voting. (don't forget, you can vote for more than one book!) --Andreas 22:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

US History (3)
Votes:
 * 1) EuropracBHIT 01:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC).
 * 2) --Andreas 14:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) SamE 03:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * It's always a good idea to have a Humanities book of rigorous content on the list, particularly in view of Black History Month. -EuropracBHIT 06:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) from January

Teaching Assistant in France Survival Guide (0)
Votes:

Comments:
 * Despite misgivings I have about the French, this book is pretty cool. And somewhat unique idea for a wikitext and a fun read - marsh from January
 * A unique and informative guide, I can only hope more guides are made for teaching in other countries (China for instance, ya) -Tiberus from January

High school extensions (5)
Votes:
 * 1) r3m0t (cont) (talk) 00:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) EuropracBHIT 01:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC).
 * 3) Destrogal 00:05, 6 Feb 2005 (EST).
 * 4) Lemontea 11:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Bawolff 04:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Yum. --r3m0t (cont) (talk) 00:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As much of the content is avaliable but not utilised for Australian schools, the principal author has a good awareness of their market. Having this as a Featured Wikibook would help the rest of the world, as well as all who are interested in an accessible introduction to the intricacies of higher mathematics and the sciences (including mature-aged students). I recommend High School Extensions warmly and highly, and would strongly encourage people to contribute to Discrete Probability and Further Modular Arithmetic, as well as thinking of HARD problems in otherwise complete sections. -EuropracBHIT 01:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC).
 * Nothing against r3m0t, but I really think we should restrain from nominating the two books he's worked on for the first two months of Book of the Month, despite their content. - SamE 05:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As reply to the above comment, I've two points to say:firstly, it doesn't quite matter who is the author, as long as we fairly choose the best book out of here, somehow we're not voting "author of the month", hum? Second, the book, in the end, isn't written entirely by him. There are three major author, and a lots of contributer, I think this is an ideal way of writting a wikibook, too.As for my comment on this book, I could just say well done. They chose the fun and actually useful tools/topics in mathematics, and in a balanced level(not too hard, not too easy), they presented these topics in a good and attractive way. --Lemontea 11:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have actually not contributed much to that book. Typos corrected and a new part about number bases which is very simple and compared to the rest of the book insignificant. --r3m0t (cont) (talk) 11:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * SamE, it is after all an open voting. If you don't like the selection of the books presented here, you are free to nominate high quality books by yourself and vote for them. --Andreas 09:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * An important thing to note is that some of the stuff in there is actually taught in high schools ("secondary schools") in the UK at the non-compulsory education stage (ages 16-18) if you choose Physics and/or Maths at A-Level. I'm not sure what exactly, because I am in my last year before my A-Levels, but I'm sure imaginary numbers are taught and I think it's likely number bases are too. (Further Maths is also available which almost certainly covers it. --r3m0t (cont) (talk) 11:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to vote against this since it doesn't necessarily deserve an opposing vote - there is good content here, but some of it is really quite messy. Dysprosia 13:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Then which part(s) of it is/are messy? I would like to hear the feedback in order to clean up the book. Also as a side notes, the discreet probability chapter has been recently created, although just a stub, it is somehow the first step that every chapter in the book has to go through. Unluckily, I'm no good on that subject, so I hope that someone good with it could contribute. --Lemontea 12:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure. Here's a little list, even though this isn't really the place, so I'll just bring up the points; we can discuss them elsewhere later. From the three chapters listed as 100%: HSE Primes - the square root notation is very much a strong abuse of notation. I've brought that up on the talk page but nothing has come of it, unfortunately. This will confuse the target audience. Listing Arnold Ross is a bit strange for a textbook. HSE Logic - the motivational section on Boolean algebra isn't quite intuitive enough. The way additive and multiplicative notation is introduced needs more background and explanation for why we use this notation. The proofs section looks okay. The way TeX notation is used though may probably need to be carefully examined, for readability and typography purposes. Dysprosia 04:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not possible at all to vote against something (see rules), but you can nominate and vote for as many of the other books as you like. (I wonder why nobody dares to vote for the other books...) --Andreas 14:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cell Biology (0)
Votes:

Comments:

Learning the vi Editor (2)
Votes:
 * 1) --Andreas 11:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) --Mattwj2002 06:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)  <-- This vote was made by a person who was not logged in when voting. Please confirm the vote by signing it again while logged in.
 * 3) Bawolff 04:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * A book with very narrow appeal, whatever its quality. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 18:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * At university we use exclusively Linux, and knowing vi gives me advantage over my fellows in very quickly editing small scripts and files. The book starts from the beginning, but having used vi already for several years, I still found very useful tricks and tweaks in this nice Wikibook. --Andreas 11:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Provides a lot of great information without overwhelming the student in the beginning. I recommended this book to one of my college professors for an intro class. --Mattwj2002 06:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

English
Votes:

Comments:

Mandarin Chinese (4)
Votes: Comments:
 * 1) --Tiberus 20:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) --Jacoplane 02:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) --Andreas 22:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) --Christiaan 12:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) --Xiaodai 00:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)  <== unfortunately after deadline.


 * Why not have a language book be book of the month this time? At the speed the internet grows in China, Chinese will be web language #1 in a few years --Andreas 22:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Very cool, and agree with Andreas' comment. Christiaan 12:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well written almost perfect for beginners. Although the side by side nature of Simp and Trad Chinese can be confusing. Xiaodai 00:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Algorithms (0)
Votes:

Comments:

Buddhist Philosophy (0)
Votes:

Comments: